HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT ECHR 1999-III; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 71, ECHR 2004-XI; and Von Hannover (no. 2), cited above, § 102). Moreover, particularly strong reasons must be provided for any measure limiting access to information which the public has the right to receive (see Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 31, 27 November 2007). 179. Furthermore, it is not for the Court, any more than it is for the national courts, to substitute its own views for those of the press as to what techniques of reporting should be adopted in a particular case (see Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés, cited above, § 89) or how the profession should be exercised, including the means of transmission of opinions or information (see, mutatis mutandis, Frăsilă and Ciocîrlan v. Romania, no. 25329/03, § 63, 10 May 2012). 180. Nowadays, the content of freedom of the press must be assessed in the light of developments in information technology, as journalistic information no longer consists solely of news coverage in the printed press and broadcasting media. The Court has repeatedly held that, in addition to its primary function as a “public watchdog”, the press has a secondary but nonetheless valuable role in maintaining archives containing news which has previously been reported and making them available to the public. In that connection the Court has held that Internet archives make a substantial contribution to preserving and making available news and information. Digital archives constitute an important source for education and historical research, particularly as they are readily accessible to the public and are generally free (see Times Newspapers Ltd, cited above, §§ 27 and 45; Węgrzynowski and Smolczewski, cited above, § 59; and M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above, § 90), although the Court observes that press archives tend increasingly to be behind a paywall. This function of the press, like the corresponding legitimate interest of the public in accessing the archives, is undoubtedly protected by Article 10 of the Convention (see M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above, § 102). 181. The Court observes that in Times Newspapers Ltd (cited above, § 45), it found that “the margin of appreciation afforded to States in striking the balance between the competing rights is likely to be greater where news archives of past events, rather than news reporting of current affairs, are concerned. In particular, the duty of the press to act in accordance with the principles of responsible journalism by ensuring the accuracy of historical, rather than perishable, information published is likely to be more stringent in the absence of any urgency in publishing the material.” However, the Court emphasises that these findings must be interpreted with due regard to the particular context of the case in question, which concerned the storage in a digital newspaper archive of articles that had been criticised as being defamatory and whose very accuracy had been called into question. Furthermore, it is of crucial importance that the Convention is interpreted and 62